Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

JFC Morfin <> Mon, 19 October 2015 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506A71ACDD9 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.367
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHJArWfTCjZs for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F8201B2D7E for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:52500 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZoJ8y-0006nw-AG; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:43:04 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:42:05 +0200
To: John C Klensin <>,John Levine <>,
From: JFC Morfin <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:13 -0000

Dear John,

I think you accept that the US influence is 
architectonic (i.e. melting politics, global 
inflence, culture, politics, economics and 
technology). Vint Cerf planned its ARPANET 
catenet with two objectives. The first objective 
was TCP/IP, the second objective was 
multitechnology. However, multitechnology was a 
problem for the NSA which decided to stay with 
TCP/IP, made Tymnet purchased to recover the RFC 
923 Tymnet delegated IP addresses, created the 
IETF, introduced the "status_quo" strategy, 
crowned it with ICANN, etc. until it became clear 
its surveillance leadership would be challenged 
by some European and BRICS NSAs at the WCIT in Dec. 2012.

Since August 2012 they engaged in a 
counter-strategy with the RFC 6852 and their 
multistakeholderist plan. In Dubaï, Europe partly abstained, BRICS won.

Then they had Snowden, the NTIA annoucement, 
NETmundial and the IETF taking side as the 
technical USCC/GAFAM ICANN  Global Community pole.

There is nothing wrong with this except the BUG 
issue. They want to be the market monopoly, 
keeping trying to believe and make us believe 
they can Be Universally Global, without BRICS and 
Europe, without the Libre, without the lead users, without the users.

Since the RFC 5895, the architectural issue has 
stabilized around the OSI layer six : security, 
multilingualism, intelligence. The US technical 
culture supports it as an applications cloud 
organized throughout GAFAM consumers markets. I 
observe that this culture is now challenged by a 
return of the two other OSI layer six approaches 
of INRIA (within the protocol stack) and Tymnet 
(smart fringes) due to the speed and cpu power 
increase that helps using the IP datagrams, 
outside of TCP/UDP, as intelligrams. And get out 
of the unique unix centered USG procurement technical culture.

The USG influence on technology is not so much by 
political strategy than by procurement political 
conservative consistency. Too big to innovate. 
This is why small, networked individuals, are 
beautifull. The issue is there: networked 
individuals progress faster with a law to 
coordinate their objectives. The US are missing 
innovative laws. This is something we are trying 
to work on right now over here. We will see if we can do it ?


At 21:49 19/10/2015, John C Klensin wrote:

>--On Monday, October 19, 2015 18:32 +0000 John Levine
><>; wrote:
> >> The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in
> >> that way because they are in a stewardship context where
> >> governmental inroads have been proscribed.
> >
> > You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the
> > relevant section of the law, please?
>John, thanks.
>Seth, at best, "proscribed" is a little strong.  It was made
>very clear during the organization/creation of ICANN that the US
>Govt could (and would) intervene in the protocol and numbering
>areas if they felt a need to do that.  One can attribute their
>very light hand in those areas to any of their perception that
>things are working well, that the serious and high-visibility
>politics lie closer to domain name, that the disagreements about
>success criteria I mentioned earlier have impacts in this area
>as well, that the ICANN and its staff have been more active and
>interventionist in the names area and hence require more
>supervision, that John's comments about where the money flows
>are relevant, and perhaps other reasons.  It is clear that there
>have been very few direct or indirect government interventions
>in recent years in the protocol parameter and numbering areas,
>but, despite all the noise, there haven't been many
>interventions in the names area either.
>But "proscribed"? I don't think so and, like John, I'd like to
>see citations of law or anything else of substance.
>     john
>Ianaplan mailing list